That is a red herring. You wrote "According to Mueller, not only did Trump and the Trump campaign not collude with the Russians, neither did any other American." Please link, if you can find it, to the page of the report where it stated that, and how it relates to these two statements (on page 2 of the second volume): "...if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state." "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him".

That is a red herring. You wrote "According to Mueller, not only did Trump and the Trump campaign not collude with the Russians, neither did any other American." Please link, if you can find it, to the page of the report where it stated that, and how it relates to these two statements (on page 2 of the second volume): "...if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state." "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him".

I posted quotes from the report - where they say there is no evidence of coordination or conpsiracy, etc., that means there is no evidence of any collusion.

To "collude" means to "cooperate in a secret or unlawful way in order to deceive or gain an advantage over others." To conspire means to "make secret plans jointly to commit an unlawful or harmful act." And, coordinate means "negotiate with others in order to work together effectively."

What part of "collude" is not subsumed within "conspiracy" and "coordinate?" Please explain how the president can collude without also coordinating and/or conspiring?

Regarding the "if we had confdience after throrough investigiont that the president did not commit obstruction, we would so state" bit, that is different, of course, than the collusion allegation. Saying that they can't say he definitively did not obstruct justice is not relevant to anything. They certainly determined that they could not say that there was enough evidence to say he did do that. And, the reference to "while this report does not conclude that the PResident committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him," is just a truism of any prosecutorial investigation. They aren't looking to exonerate him - they are looking for evidence - if they don't find evidence, they don't find evidence.

It's like the proof of god issue - there is no evidence of god that we're aware of. Does that "exonerate" the universe of having a god? I.e., does the lack of evidence mean there cannot be a god? Of course not. All we can say is that we don't believe things to be true unless there is evidence to support the truth of the matter asserted. Absent evidence, we don't believe.

Same goes for Trump on coordination/conpsiracy -- no evidence. I equate the allegation of "collusion" with "coordination/conspiracy." You may not - you may think there is some distinction between collusion and conspiracy/coordination - but, if you do think that, you haven't articulated what you think the difference is. I'd ask you to do that, please.

Also, regarding obstruction - if anyone is investigated for obstruction and the prosecutor comes away saying they looked at the evidence and information and found that they can't say there is insufficient evidence to say the suspect obstructed, then that's the end of it. We're never going to get the prosecutor to say they've found rock solid evidence that he couldn't have obstructed justice. The standard for obstruction advanced by some people is that if the President shouts down the hallway that he is sick of the Mueller investigation and wants it shut down, that that's obstruction of justice.

The question for a skeptic should be whether they found evidence to support a given assertion. What evidence have they found which supports what assertion?

“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

From red herring to Gish gallop. Why am I not surprised? What next? Can't find anything to start "whatabout" with?

Look, Duane, when all is said and done, it comes to this:

1) True: "...if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."
2) True: "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." <--- Note the full fucking stop.

3) Not true: "According to Mueller, not only did Trump and the Trump campaign not collude with the Russians, neither did any other American."

The report describes actions and events that the Special Counsel's Office found to be supported by the evidence collected in our investigation. In some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event. In other instances, when substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with confidence, the report states that the investigation established that certain actions or events occurred. A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.

He probably ought to read the report before making pronouncements about it, but I doubt that will happen.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"as far as strong, i am hard as a rock and tough as a nail. no one will bring me down. no one. i am the debonator. the tnt. and jesus has my back door pal!" - D. C. Bockemehl
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

From red herring to Gish gallop. Why am I not surprised? What next? Can't find anything to start "whatabout" with?

Look, Duane, when all is said and done, it comes to this:

1) True: "...if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."

I know. They did not say that the facts showed the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice. The investigation did conclude that there was no evidence of coordination/conspiracy, and hence no collusion.

3) Not true: "According to Mueller, not only did Trump and the Trump campaign not collude with the Russians, neither did any other American."

Which is true.

I gave you the quotes -- the "no American" reference is in the report, quoted. Your mincing words with "collusion." The report doesn't use that word, but there is no relevant distinction here. The report found zero evidence of coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia (or any American and Russia).

If you think the Mueller report did, in fact, find some collusion, conspiracy or coordination between a member of the Trump campaign and Russia relative to the 2016 election, then cite it - quote it - something. I know you can't. Because it's not in the report.

Do you think that Mueller found collusion, but didn't mention it because he didn't find coordination or conspiracy?

Do you at least acknowledge that Mueller did not find any evidence of the Trump campaign coordinating/conspiring with Russia regarding the 2016 election? Will you go that far?

“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

That is a red herring. You wrote "According to Mueller, not only did Trump and the Trump campaign not collude with the Russians, neither did any other American." Please link, if you can find it, to the page of the report where it stated that, and how it relates to these two statements (on page 2 of the second volume): "...if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state." "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him".

It's not a red herring. I fucking quoted the pages above - several times - with highlighting. When Mueller says there was no evidence of coordination, conspiracy and similar verbiage, it means the same thing as collusion.

If you think collusion means something else, then define it.

And you keep bringing up the quote about it not being clearly shown that the President did not commit obstruction of justice - that's not relevant to collusion or coordination or conspiracy -- those are different acts.

I admit the Mueller report did not exonerate the president on the crime of obstruction of justice. But it DID find expressly in several places that there was no coordination or conspiracy (and collusion falls within those terms).

Once again - if you think Mueller said there was evidence of collusion, please cite it. If your saying Mueller didn't find any collusion, but that doesn't mean there wasn't collusion, I agree - there can always be stuff we don't know, and that's true of any human being on the planet. Maybe you colluded with the Russians. I don't know. You haven't been exonerated, and there you haven't been shown not to have colluded. Heck, it hasn't even been clearly shown that you didn't also "obstruct justice."

One thing we can say, though, is that nobody has any evidence that you colluded with the Russians, right? Is that good enough, or do you need more than that to be left alone about it?

“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

To "collude" means to "cooperate in a secret or unlawful way in order to deceive or gain an advantage over others." To conspire means to "make secret plans jointly to commit an unlawful or harmful act." And, coordinate means "negotiate with others in order to work together effectively."

So we can say that 'collude' means to cooperate in a secret way in order to gain an advantage, like members of the campaign or the transition arranging secret meetings, which they denied but which were later substantiated, We can say that 'cooperation' is working with others towards a common end (there's no necessity to negotiate), like working with a foreign government to get elected. As for 'conspiracy', well that can be a legal matter, but not necessarily or solely a legal matter, as it also means simply events or agents working together to bring about a (generally negative) end, like undermining the integrity of the electoral process or the robustness of democratic institutions for example.

You see, Mueller wasn't appointed to indict, charge or prosecute Trump for collusion, but primarily to investigate into Russian interference in the election (which virtually nobody now denies despite Mr Trumps declaration that he believes Putin's assurances over US national security agencies assertions) and how the activity of Russia intersected with the Trump campaign. What I'm seeing here is basically forced criticism of the investigation for not resulting in, or providing evidence for, a criminal indictment, charge or prosecution, which misses the point - wilfully so in my opinion. This is about democratic security, not Trump. Ultimately Congress is the proper body to adjudicate on the report's finding as Congress is the only body with the de facto authority to hold the president and/or the office of the president to account. In other words, if anybody is going to exonerate the president then it would, should, and must be Congress. The Mueller report was never going to end with the president charged and defending himself in the criminal court, and to place that condition on the report, and then to seek to delegitimise it (and/or to claim a moral victory) on that basis, is disingenuous, and dangerous.

The question, the really important question, is: do the American people deserve, or even want, the actions of the Trump campaign and presidency to set the bar for the campaigns and presidencies to come?

Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here..

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."
Frank Zappa

The report describes actions and events that the Special Counsel's Office found to be supported by the evidence collected in our investigation. In some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event. In other instances, when substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with confidence, the report states that the investigation established that certain actions or events occurred. A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.

He probably ought to read the report before making pronouncements about it, but I doubt that will happen.

Yes, on a previous page I quoted the sentence you underlined. When we look at subsequent posts, we see a dishonest approach.

So, from page 66 of the first volume of the report we find the following, previously quoted via an image:

The Office identified multiple contacts—"links," in the words of the Appointment Order—between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government. The Office investigated whether those contacts constituted a third avenue of attempted Russian interference with or influence on the 2016 presidential election. In particular, the investigation examined whether these contacts involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the Trump Campaign and Russia, including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the Campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future. Based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination.

The report says 'did not establish' rather than 'no evidence' here, though it essentially said 'no evidence' in regard to coordination with the troll farm/IRA (page 14 of the first volume):

Some IRA employees, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated electronically with individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities, including the staging of political rallies. The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA's interference operation.

I pointed out the unmistakable difference in word choice between quotes like the first one above and this one referring to coordination with the troll farm, and got crickets in response.

Subsequently we have an assertion that 'Same goes for Trump on coordination/conpsiracy [sic]-- no evidence.' This is clearly not what the report says.

It seems to me that the only logical inference is that there is evidence of coordination (while the investigators found none in regard to the specific instance of the troll farm) though the available evidence is not sufficient to establish such coordination. In the context of this report I think it makes sense that 'establish' refers to the criminal law standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt.'

From red herring to Gish gallop. Why am I not surprised? What next? Can't find anything to start "whatabout" with?

Look, Duane, when all is said and done, it comes to this:

1) True: "...if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."

I know. They did not say that the facts showed the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice. The investigation did conclude that there was no evidence of coordination/conspiracy, and hence no collusion.

3) Not true: "According to Mueller, not only did Trump and the Trump campaign not collude with the Russians, neither did any other American."

Which is true.

I gave you the quotes -- the "no American" reference is in the report, quoted. Your mincing words with "collusion." The report doesn't use that word, but there is no relevant distinction here. The report found zero evidence of coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia (or any American and Russia).

If you think the Mueller report did, in fact, find some collusion, conspiracy or coordination between a member of the Trump campaign and Russia relative to the 2016 election, then cite it - quote it - something. I know you can't. Because it's not in the report.

Do you think that Mueller found collusion, but didn't mention it because he didn't find coordination or conspiracy?

Do you at least acknowledge that Mueller did not find any evidence of the Trump campaign coordinating/conspiring with Russia regarding the 2016 election? Will you go that far?

No, I won't, because the report doesn't support that overly broad assertion. Once again, as L'Emmerdeur pointed out, the report says;

A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.

Go back and read your quotes:

"the investigation did not establish"

"The investigation did not, however, yield evidence sufficient to sustain any charge"

"the Office did not find evidence likely to prove beyond a reasonable doubt"

"The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated"

Contrast them with what you've written

"found zero evidence of coordination or conspiracy"

"did not find any evidence of the Trump campaign coordinating/conspiring with Russia."

Do you see the difference?

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"as far as strong, i am hard as a rock and tough as a nail. no one will bring me down. no one. i am the debonator. the tnt. and jesus has my back door pal!" - D. C. Bockemehl
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

The report describes actions and events that the Special Counsel's Office found to be supported by the evidence collected in our investigation. In some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event. In other instances, when substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with confidence, the report states that the investigation established that certain actions or events occurred. A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.

He probably ought to read the report before making pronouncements about it, but I doubt that will happen.

Yeah, on a previous page I quoted the sentence you underlined. When we look at subsequent posts, we see a dishonest approach.

So, from page 66 of the first volume of the report we find the following, previously quoted via an image:

The Office identified multiple contacts—"links," in the words of the Appointment Order—between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government. The Office investigated whether those contacts constituted a third avenue of attempted Russian interference with or influence on the 2016 presidential election. In particular, the investigation examined whether these contacts involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the Trump Campaign and Russia, including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the Campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future. Based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination.

The report says 'did not establish' rather than 'no evidence' here, though it essentially said 'no evidence' in regard to coordination with the troll farm/IRA (page 14 of the first volume):

Some IRA employees, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated electronically with individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities, including the staging of political rallies. The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA's interference operation.

I pointed out the unmistakable difference in word choice between quotes like the first one above and this one referring to coordination with the troll farm, and got crickets in response.

Subsequently we have an assertion that 'Same goes for Trump on coordination/conpsiracy [sic]-- no evidence.' This is clearly not what the report says.

It seems to me that the only logical inference is that there is evidence of coordination (while the investigators found none in regard to the specific instance of the troll farm) though the available evidence is not sufficient to establish such coordination. In the context of this report I think it makes sense that 'establish' refers to the criminal law standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt.'

Yes, I noticed you pointed that out after I posted. Sorry I missed it.

I'm not surprised you got crickets. Forty Two runs away when refuted, and as you say, the difference between the report's word choice and his is unmistakable. I've reiterated this to him, so I'll see if he can muster a response, probably another orotund deluge of blatherskite if anything at all.

Of course, he's just trying to distract from how the report shows Trump to be temperamentally, morally, and intellectually unfit for his office, and how his subordinates defied his worst impulses for the sake of the country. Otherwise, he'd have to admit he was wrong to vote for the guy.

As you say, Meuller found evidence the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russians, but nothing that he would prosecute. In fact, the report shows how these rubes sold out their country for their own benefit. It's sad to see that so many Americans will tolerate these Quislings because they're fellow Republicans.

As for Forty Two, "a dishonest approach" is a very kind description of his modus operandi.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"as far as strong, i am hard as a rock and tough as a nail. no one will bring me down. no one. i am the debonator. the tnt. and jesus has my back door pal!" - D. C. Bockemehl
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

3) Not true: "According to Mueller, not only did Trump and the Trump campaign not collude with the Russians, neither did any other American."

Which is true.

I gave you the quotes -- the "no American" reference is in the report, quoted.

The quotes you provided address very specific scenarios. Neither each on their own nor collectively do they amount to your assertion that "According to Mueller, not only did Trump and the Trump campaign not collude with the Russians, neither did any other American."

In an attempt to help you out I have searched both volumes of the Mueller report for the following expressions: "no American", "any American" and "other American". None were found. At least a search of the relevant PDFs came up with zilch, but as you know, PDFs are infamous for their quirks. I'll have to rely on your ingenuity to provide the page number of what you purport to have quoted.

Considering that the Mueller report did state that

[Vol.2 p.2] The evidence we obtained about the President' s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred.

and

[Vol.1 p.2] A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.

Yes, I noticed you pointed that out after I posted. Sorry I missed it.

It's a key point in understanding the report, and it doesn't hurt to emphasize it repeatedly, since Trump and others have chosen to ignore its existence.

Some people can overlook temperamental, moral, and intellectual shortcomings as long as they 'generally speaking' like the policies being pushed. In this circumstance, voting for Trump was the right choice.

3) Not true: "According to Mueller, not only did Trump and the Trump campaign not collude with the Russians, neither did any other American."

Which is true.

I gave you the quotes -- the "no American" reference is in the report, quoted.

The quotes you provided address very specific scenarios. Neither each on their own nor collectively do they amount to your assertion that "According to Mueller, not only did Trump and the Trump campaign not collude with the Russians, neither did any other American."

In an attempt to help you out I have searched both volumes of the Mueller report for the following expressions: "no American", "any American" and "other American". None were found.

Did you search for "U.S. Person?" I know you want to, in this instance, mince words and say that I'm wrong because "American" means something different than "U.S. Person." But, “The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operation” means that no American, and that includes the Trump campaign as they are US persons, knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the Russian effort to interfere via Facebook ads and Twitter posts, etc. They couldn't identify "any evidence."

Consider Mueller’s discussion of efforts by George Papadopoulos, Joseph Misfud and and “two Russian nationals” whereby they tried “to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and Russian officials” to talk about how the two sides could work together to disseminate information about Hillary Clinton. As Mueller puts it: “No meeting took place.” Regarding various Trump officials’ 2016 meetings with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, Mueller said they were “brief, public and nonsubstantive.”

Concerning the much-hyped change to GOP platform regarding Ukraine, Mueller wrote that the “evidence does not establish that one campaign official’s efforts to dilute a portion of the Republican platform was undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia,” and further noted that such a change was consistent with Trump’s publicly stated foreign policy view (one shared by Obama) to avoid provoking gratuitous conflict with the Kremlin over arming Ukrainians. Mueller also characterized a widely hyped “meeting” between then-Senator Jeff Sessions and Kislyak as one that did not “include any more than a passing mention of the presidential campaign.”

All quotes from Mueller there, in the report.

Regarding Post-GOP Convention allegations --

No coordination

Regarding alleged involvement by Trump officials or family members in the Russian hacks, for instance, Mueller explained, and I quote - “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Regarding Trump or anyone in the campaign acting as agents of the Russian government or at their request - Mueller found that the investigation did not establish that anyone did that. And, Mueller’s examination of all the so-called “links” between Trump campaign officials and Russia that the U.S. media has spent almost three years depicting as “bombshell” evidence of criminality met the same fate: the evidence could not, and did not, establish that any such links constituted “coordination” or “conspiracy” between Trump and Russia.

Mueller did not find even a single American to indict or charge with illegally working for Russia, secretly acting as a Russian agent, or conspiring with the Russians over the election – not even Carter Page. Nobody. Do you disagree? If you do, then who did the Mueller report identify as doing what?

[Vol.2 p.2] The evidence we obtained about the President' s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred.

and

[Vol.1 p.2] A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.

I don't fancy your chances of you finding it, though.

Nobody is disputing that the special counsel investigation did not "conclusively determine" the negative - that no criminal conduct occurred. That really is a rather empty phrase. The FBI didn't "conclusively determine" that no criminal conduct was committed by the Clinton campaign either. Is that the test, though? "conclusively determine" that no criminal conduct occurred?

Here is the result:

Democrats and their supporters had the exact prosecutor they all agreed was the embodiment of competence and integrity in Robert Mueller. He assembled a team of prosecutors and investigators that countless media accounts heralded as the most aggressive and adept in the nation. They had subpoena power, the vast surveillance apparatus of the U.S. government at their disposal, a demonstrated willingness to imprison anyone who lied to them, and unlimited time and resources to dig up everything they could.

The result of all of that was that not a single American – whether with the Trump campaign or otherwise – was charged or indicted on the core question of whether there was any conspiracy or coordination with Russia over the election. No Americans were charged or even accused of being controlled by or working at the behest of the Russian government. None of the key White House aides at the center of the controversy who testified for hours and hours – including Donald Trump, Jr. or Jared Kushner – were charged with any crimes of any kind, not even perjury, obstruction of justice or lying to Congress.

These facts are fatal to the conspiracy theorists who have drowned U.S. discourse for almost three years with a dangerous and distracting fixation on a fictitious espionage thriller involved unhinged claims of sexual and financial blackmail, nefarious infiltration of the U.S. Government by familiar foreign villains, and election cheating that empowered an illegitimate President. They got the exact prosecutor and investigation that they wanted, yet he could not establish that any of this happened and, in many cases, established that it did not.

THE ANTI-CLIMACTIC ENDING of the Mueller investigation is particularly stunning given how broad Mueller’s investigative scope ended up being, extending far beyond the 2016 election into years worth of Trump’s alleged financial dealings with Russia (and, obviously, Manafort’s with Ukraine and Russia). There can simply be no credible claim that Mueller was, in any meaningful way, impeded by scope, resources or topic limitation from finding anything for which he searched.

Despite efforts today by long-time conspiracist theorists to drastically move goalposts so as to claim vindication, the historical record could not be clearer that Mueller’s central mandate was to determine whether crimes were committed by Trump officials in connection with alleged Russian interference in the election. The first paragraph of the New York Times article from May, 2017, announcing Mueller’s appointment, leaves no doubt about that:

The Justice Department appointed Robert S. Mueller III, a former F.B.I. director, as special counsel on Wednesday to oversee the investigation into ties between President Trump’s campaign and Russian officials, dramatically raising the legal and political stakes in an affair that has threatened to engulf Mr. Trump’s four-month-old presidency.

As recently as one month ago, former CIA Director and current NBC News analyst John Brennan was confidently predicting that Mueller could not possibly close his investigation without first indicting a slew of Americans for criminally conspiring with Russia over the election, and specifically predicted that Trump’s family members would be included among those so charged:

Obviously, none of that happened. Nor were any of the original accusations that launched this three-year-long mania — from an accusatory August, 2016 online commercial from the Clinton campaign — corroborated by the Mueller Report:

Indeed, so many of the most touted media “bombshells” claiming to establish Trump/Russia crimes have been proven false by this report. Despite an extensive discussion of Paul Manafort’s activities, nothing in the Report even hints, let alone states, that he ever visited Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy, let alone visited him three times, including during the 2016 election. How the Guardian could justify still not retracting that false story is mystifying.

Faring even worse is the Buzzfeed bombshell from January claiming that “President Donald Trump directed his longtime attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow” and that “Cohen also told the special counsel that after the election, the president personally instructed him to lie — by claiming that negotiations ended months earlier than they actually did — in order to obscure Trump’s involvement.” Mueller himself responded to the story by insisting it was false, and his Report directly contradicts it, as it makes clear that Cohen told Mueller the exact opposite:

NONE OF THIS IS TO SAY that the Mueller Report exonerates Trump of wrongdoing. Mueller makes clear, for instance, that the Trump campaign not only knew that Russia was interested in helping it win the election but was happy to have that help. There’s clearly nothing criminal about that. One can debate whether it’s unethical for a presidential campaign to have dirt about its opponent released by a foreign government, though anyone who wants to argue that has to reconcile that with the fact that the DNC had a contractor working with the Ukrainian government to help Hillary Clinton win by feeding them dirt on Trump and Manafort, as well as a paid operative named Christopher Steele (remember him?) working with Russian officials to get dirt on Trump.

''

But anything is possible. It’s inherently possible that anyone is guilty of any crime but that the evidence just cannot be found to prove it. One cannot prove a negative. But the only way to rationally assess what happened is by looking at the evidence that is available, and that’s what Mueller did. And there’s simply no persuasive way – after heralding Mueller and his team as the top-notch investigators that they are and building up expectations about what this would produce – for any honest person to deny that the end of the Mueller investigation was a huge failure from the perspective of those who pushed these conspiracies.

“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

THE NATURE OF OUR POLITICAL DISCOURSE is that nobody ever needs to admit error because it is easy to confine oneself to strictly partisan precincts where people are far more interested in hearing what advances their agenda or affirms their beliefs than they are hearing the truth. For that reason, I doubt that anyone who spent the last three years pushing utterly concocted conspiracy theories will own up to it, let alone confront any accountability or consequences for it.

I highly doubt it, too.

But certain facts will never go away no matter how much denial they embrace. The sweeping Mueller investigation ended with zero indictments of zero Americans for conspiring with Russia over the 2016 election. Both Donald Trump, Jr. and Jared Kushner – the key participants in the Trump Tower meeting – testified for hours and hours yet were never charged for perjury, lying or obstruction, even though Mueller proved how easily he would indict anyone who lied as part of the investigation. And this massive investigation simply did not establish any of the conspiracy theories that huge parts of the Democratic Party, the intelligence community and the U.S. media spent years encouraging the public to believe.

Yep - we all remember the last 3 years of damning event after damning event being publicized in the pro-Democrat news. Now we're going to be asked to believe that all that was about was that it can't be "conclusively" or "clearly" shown that Trump didn't try to obstruct justice? LOL.

Those responsible for this can refuse to acknowledge wrongdoing. They can even claim vindication if they want and will likely be cheered for doing so.

But the contempt in which the media and political class is held by so much of the U.S. population – undoubtedly a leading factor that led to Trump’s election in the first place – will only continue to grow as a result, and deservedly so. People know they were scammed, that their politics was drowned for years by a hoax. And none of that will go away no matter how insulated media and political elites in Washington, northern Virginia, Brooklyn, and large West Coast cities keep themselves, and thus hear only in-group affirmation while blocking out all of that well-earned scorn.

Hang your hat on the argument that Mueller didn't prove that Trump is innocent. That is, at bottom, what you're doing. Declaring victory because the investigation didn't conclude that Trump "clearly" did not obstruct justice. Of course, the report didn't conclude that Trump "clearly" did obstruct justice, or even "vaguely" obstructed justice. Both are correct.

Call me when someone does provide facts which do clearly show that Trump committed a crime. Can we at least agree that the Mueller report did not conclude that Trump/Campaign committed a crime related to the 2016 election? Can we agree that the Mueller report did not conclude that there was evidence of a crime sufficient to indict anyone in the Trump campaign regarding the 2016 election? I mean, if your answer to either of those two questions is answered "no" then the next question would be where in the report did they so conclude?

“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar